|
Prepare For Wave 2 (3/22/00)
|
 
|
| | |
Gentlemen, start your engines-- we can only assume that the iMac cloners are preparing to imitate with reckless abandon. Faithful viewer SpaceTrucker was the first to tell us about the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling that protects knockoff products. Apparently this new ruling declares that copying the "distinctive look" of a product doesn't violate U.S. trademark laws. Hear that? That's the sound of millions of brightly-colored, translucent all-in-one computers all flooding the market at the same time...
There's more about the Supreme Court's landmark decision in an American Lawyer Media article. Apparently the case in question involved Wal-Mart ripping off the clothing designs of some company called Samara Brothers. The court ruled that "product design is like color and therefore cannot be protected." You just have to assume that Daewoo and eMachines are kicking themselves right now; if they'd have just held out a bit longer before settling Apple's copycat lawsuits, they'd have a lot more leverage to sell their iMacalikes. Meanwhile, Future Power's probably dancing a jig, crafting a smug press release, and firing up the production lines-- when the company's lawyers waltz into court against Apple next month, it sounds like they're going to have a Supreme Court decision on their side.
Now, we're not lawyers, but we've seen one on TV. (Oh, wait, hold on-- one of us is a lawyer, and one that specializes in intellectual property law, at that. Too bad she's not writing this, hmmm?) From a layperson's perspective, we'd swear we've heard in the past that clothing designs are expressly not protected under law, which is why cheap knockoffs of designer label clothing are everywhere-- so why did the Wal-Mart case get all the way to the Supreme Court? Whatever. Apple's one saving grace may be that the court did allow for product design protection in the case that it acquires a "secondary meaning" that "links it uniquely to the manufacturer." In other words, if "the design-- such as a Coke bottle-- has become identified with a single manufacturer," then that design is protected by law. Now all Apple's lawyers have to do is prove that the iMac's distinctive look fulfills that criterion. Can they pull it off? Hey, they've been on a winning streak recently, so we wouldn't bet against them. Anyone got the Vegas odds?
| |
| |
 |
SceneLink (2172)
|  |
 |
 | | The above scene was taken from the 3/22/00 episode: March 22, 2000: You can stop shaking your Magic 8-Ball; a couple of investors have the explanation for AAPL's recent sudden rise. Meanwhile, the iMac copycats may have hit their second wind, as the Supreme Court rules that product design is generally not protected by trademark law, and the government is reportedly close to accepting a settlement from Microsoft-- one that doesn't call for a breakup...
Other scenes from that episode: 2171: The Mundane Explanation (3/22/00) Up nearly twelve points on Tuesday, up another nine points on Wednesday-- no doubt about it, something's going on with Apple stock. Once the whipping boy of the tech market, AAPL has grown from under $13 a share to over $144 in just over two years... 2173: Inconsistent Behavior (3/22/00) Will the government never learn? The latest developments in the "Redmond Justice" case are startling, to say the least, and frankly, we're wondering where the writers are going with this. Faithful viewer Stuart Carlton alerted us to a CNNfn article about the increasing likelihood of an out-of-court settlement; you'll recall that, until now, settlement talks between Microsoft and the government were about as productive as a fish with a typewriter...
Or view the entire episode as originally broadcast... | |  |
|
|
